Internet-Facilitated Dating/Courtship
by Steve Watters on 03/27/2007 at 3:02 PM
It was great to see such a great conversation (and a record number of comments) grow out of the post on guys and motivation.
I noticed more than one commenter bemoan the scarcity of quality prospects in their area. Esther, for example, wrote, "Does this mean it's time for Boundless to start matching people up?"
Hmmm. This is an area we've thought about at various times but found difficult to move to reality. While we see tremendous opportunity, we also see a lot of complications in pulling off some kind of Internet-facilitated dating/courtship service. We would appreciate your prayers as we consider the potential for such a service here at Focus on the Family.
In the meantime, you could help us out by offering your thoughts about online-facilitated dating/courtship services.
- What features do you like from other services that you would recommend?
- What bugs you about other services that you wouldn't want to see repeated? (You don't need to name the service)
- Do you think there's any value an Internet service could add for couples who want to follow a courtship model vs. the dating model most matching services support?
- More importantly, do you think we have anything to add to the large market of existing services?
- Finally, is there any reason you think we should just avoid jumping into this kind of service?
Thanks for your feedback.
1. Elli said the following at 3:41 PM on Mar 27:
*looks around*
Well, guess I'm the first one! My only suggestion is that you make it conversation-based...because it's difficult and awkward to capture a person in a profile...because it's more natural and more accurate to get to know someone through observation and interaction... and because it seems lie it could be pretty effective, based on the volume of comments in your last post!
Doesn't have to be high-tech, as long as people can exchange ideas, and then contact each other if desired.
On further thought, what could the added courtship value be? Use pastors, parents, or trusted friends as contact points. In other words, you have to submit several recommendations before you have communication privileges. Kind of like applying for a job. :O)
2. Frank Hsueh said the following at 3:51 PM on Mar 27:
Miscellaneous random initial thoughts:
I recommend against it. It's not that I am a pessimist, but rather there are serious difficult to solve issues that should be solved first.
My 2 cents.
3. andrew said the following at 3:59 PM on Mar 27:
A lot of your posts have been a big advocate for including community in the courtship/dating process.
Maybe you can consider making the sign up process a "team" sort of thing where a single first signs up and then is required to add a bunch of accountability people to their profile so that when they start dating someone, the community is there and people have commited to helping the singles in their dating process.
Also asking for the father to sign up as part of the process would be good too, but this should be optional because of some singles who have fathers who are far away or not believers.
4. Sina said the following at 4:18 PM on Mar 27:
I think a forum would be good where we could chat like we do now. The whole profile thing can end up being weird in my opinion. I've been on dating sites like EHarmony, ChristianMingle and some other one I can't remember. Anyway, all of them didn't work out for me...I'll put it this way EHarmony matched me up with a girl (I'm a girl). All that to say a Christian Single forum would be nice instead. In my humble opinion of course.
5. Nate Marchand said the following at 4:19 PM on Mar 27:
I've learned the hard way that finding a mate online is a bad idea. I prefer the old-fashioned ways of meeting people. Besides, it's way too easy to lie online, and I doubt Boundless would want that on their consciences.
6. Blair said the following at 4:26 PM on Mar 27:
I think Elli has some great ideas, I like the reference idea. I too think that it should be something simple as a site where we can message people and see if anyone is in our area. I would love just to chat with others who share my faith and desire for marriage (not just potential suitors). I also want the staff of bounless to know how grateful I am that you make it okay to discuss these issues. This site is one of the few places (okay maybe the only) where I can learn and discuss these issues and not be made to feel like I am alone.
7. Claire said the following at 4:38 PM on Mar 27:
1. Though I don't know if there are any dating sites that use real full names, there are a few social networking sites (Facebook) and forums (SharperIron) that do. It adds a level of accountability: if you're somehow misrepresenting yourself, someone you know in real life could show up and set the record straight. :) Of course, how you as the moderators could verify that people are really using their real names (vs. realistic-sounding pseudonymns) is another question entirely. I'm sure that there would be some internet safety issues there as well ...
4. I'll second Elli's vote for making it conversation-based. What about modeling it as a discussion forum rather than a matchmaking service?
8. Dan H said the following at 5:09 PM on Mar 27:
Here's a suggestion: In Seattle, near where I live the Christian radio station sponsors "Spirit Cruises" where they set up a cruise to Alaska or somewhere, get some great speakers, musicians, entertainers, etc. and promote it as a great getaway for christians of every stripe. Maybe if Boundless was to do a "Boundless Cruise" or some similar activity, where we could meet some of the great columnists, bloggers and writers we have come to know over the years here on the web. As a side effect of an event like this it would get lots of marriage minded singles in one place.
Now, I understand that a cruise may be outside of the financial reach of many here but perhaps a conference or two around the country would have similar benefits.
As for starting some form of online dating/courtship service... I like what Elli says about having references or recommendations that would be a difference from many of the internet dating sites that are available now. How that would be implemented, I don't know but I like the idea.
Thanks for all the effort and great advice here on Boundless. It has been a great source of wisdom and encouragement for me.
9. Christine said the following at 5:13 PM on Mar 27:
1) Cost will be an issue for many...I can't afford anything too expensive.
2) I like the communication idea mentioned above, but I do think that profiles can be very helpful
3) It might be good to be able to indicate certain stances that are important to a person (for instance, if I was completely against baptising infants, I wouldn't want to pursue a relationship with someone who sees that as an extension of the OT covenant community).
I think that this sounds like a good idea...one that I would definitely be interested in checking out if it happens!
10. Michelle said the following at 5:19 PM on Mar 27:
I would tend to agree with Elli.
11. Brooke said the following at 5:35 PM on Mar 27:
Better retract any articles demeaning internet dating!! :-)
Coming from someone who met their spouse online (and checked out a few different sites in the process of finding him), I like the open format best. A profile and the ability to contact the person if interested in talking to them. Pretty simple.
12. kim davidson said the following at 5:41 PM on Mar 27:
Just question 5.
I think and have experienced too many girls pursuing a relationship in this area instead of allowing guys be the pursuer. Girls like to take things into their own electronic hands.
13. rich said the following at 6:15 PM on Mar 27:
As far as pointers and answers to questions: I'll have to think about that. However, I just wanted to briefly chime in and say way to go. Thanks for being willing to consider such a move. I recognize its complicated and hard to pull off, so even considering it is a great encouragement.
Quick personal testimony: I've had some measure of success on a dating service that caters to both non-Christians and Christians. I found a decent number of women who take their faith seriously on that site, and now there's a fledgling relationship going on...:) don't exactly know where its gonna lead (I'm all for it..she hasn't quite caught up yet), but hey, its 500% better "luck" than what I WAS having!
Whether its carefully moderated, like Eharmony, with step by step specifics (kind of like Elli suggested above...though I'm uncomfortable with likening it to a "job interview."), or not, like match...I can't give you any recommendations.
And making it conversation based is a great idea...don't see how it would happen any other way.
Well, I guess I CAN say one more thing, now that I've written for a few minutes. I'd think it good if we get to see what each other look like very early on. The reason is that though physical attraction isn't paramount by any stretch of the imagination, it does count. I'm not saying that I go for only the "hotties." I've found myself attracted to a wide range of what the world considers attractive. I've been attracted to the model-types, and I've been attracted to what most would say are more modest looking women. However, I have been physically attracted to them. I'm afraid that if we don't get the chance to see who we are talking to, a situation might arise like this: woman A talks to man B...they hit it off. Then woman A sees man B's picture. After prayerful consideration, even after giving the guy a further chance, she isn't attracted to him, and things go no further (the situation is reversed in many instances). This is no problem, except that they've developed quite a relationship by talking to each other. Therefore, when woman A "ends things" with man B, things might get a little messy....more messy than if she saw his picture right off and said "thanks, but no thanks."
**Again, the situation could easily be: man A is unattracted to woman B. It happens to both genders.
14. P&P said the following at 6:45 PM on Mar 27:
Rather than jumping into the world of online dating and being a small fish in the ocean business-wise, why not encourage mixers in other areas?
Get churches in geographic areas to agree to set up an eight-minute dating event/mixer for singles in the area. They can set up a screening process and have it facilitated by the pastors and married members of the churches.
The whole idea of eight-minute dating was the brainchild of a Rabbi on the West coast who wanted to encourage local Jewish singles to meet one another in a fun "game show" setting. It makes sense that events like these be hosted by other religious groups with singles hoping to meet like-minded people.
15. BrooX said the following at 6:59 PM on Mar 27:
Hmmm. Well, I think it's fraught with complications. I'll submit my semi-educated opinions for your consideration. Personally, I've avoided on-line dating like the plague. How can I be sure that I, or the on-line 'match', or both of us are NOT seeking on-line because we are demanding to have a significant-other relationship in our lives when really we are treading outside of God's will? One of my biggest concerns with on-line match-making is that it seems to offer a catch-line promise of "find your perfect mate NOW" which can be a very strong temptation - especially to people who, whether temporary or not, are in a state of thinking that the right mate is why they are feeling lonely and/or incomplete. How will you reliably weed these people out (and spare they and others more suffering)?
I have seen friends (Christian and non) whom I would assess as "not quite ready for a healthy relationship", get matched up on-line, become crazy-infatuated, and end up making some unwise choices that have collateral impacts on those around them - even their children from a previous marriage. - all in the name of their own personal happiness; though it's under the guise of building a positive relationship.
Do I think God can use on-line services to bring about good relationships? Absolutely - I do know one Christian gal who very skeptically (and after much asking of God's will) did complete the on-line application of a very reputable match-making service (who's founder is a former dean and psychologist at Fuller Theological Seminary). The application questionaire is impressively longer than the Myers-Briggs test! My friend says she actually learned some surprising and helpful things about herself from the results. After being accepted, she was give some matches. At this point, I think my friend said she had already decided that she was not going to be dating anyone from on-line. I don't know who initiated it, but a 'hello' conversation began with one guy and they quickly realized that a mutual student friend (my friend and the match guy were involved in youth/college ministries at different churches) had eagerly tried to set them up together three years prior but an actual meeting just never worked out because of circumstances. My friend says that if not for that outside/off-line confirmation, she NEVER would have agreed to meet the guy. Yes, they did marry about a year later and I enjoyed their wedding along with many other friends. :) But again, one of the very noteworthy keys here was an outside confirmation.
Besides some articles of guidance to people who might be considering trying on-line services, to be honest, I can't think of anything that Boundless could add to the existing process. Arranging for a courtship to be carried out with the oversight of parents or mentor couples is really up to the couple pursuing the relationship. - and if they can't communicate about and arrange such a thing (if that is their desire) on their own, then maybe one or both aren't mature enough in the areas of problem-solving to be pursuing a relationship in the first place.
The general argument I hear in support of on-line dating is "it's sooooo hard to meet people" and "there's no quality singles here". I find that REALLY hard to believe - and I'm and introvert. In resonse, I've got to ask those people "are you sure that you're living life as God intends?" What I notice, is that when I'm living life as God intends, He seems to bring LOTS of people across and into my path! We've got that cliche' question "What would Jesus do?" and I think about how Jesus lived and I see Jesus being very social, meeting all kinds of people from all different walks of life, and making all kinds of different friends.
Maybe instead of worrying about shopping for a spouse, we should be concerned with meeting and making real friends in person? To be honest, genuinely friendly, encouraging people are the most attractive to me.
16. Keb said the following at 7:09 PM on Mar 27:
The first thing I would say is, keep it free. A free and open service is going to help a lot more of us than a pay service.
The second thing I would suggest is that everyone who signs up be asked to agree to certain principles when signing up. Such as being Christian (as defined by specific creeds), having the intent to evaluate potential matches with an eye towards marriage, and so on.
Third, have a forum. It doesn't have to be related to the service--or it could be the place for the service to exist. A forum where boundless members could talk freely to one another--even about other members, offering support, warnings, or advice--would be the most helpful thing. It would also allow members to advise one another if shady characters are lurking among the potential mates involved in the service.
17. Chris Krycho said the following at 7:37 PM on Mar 27:
A better approach than the general dating site thing might be the oft-suggested forum (yes, I know, Ted!). That'd just be a good place for people to interact. Then from there, you might have a way for people to contact each other and move forward from there. The downside to that, of course, is that there's no really good way of limiting it, unless you had to file an application just to join the forum. (Which could actually work, if you simply limited access to particular parts of the forum unless you were an enabled user, which can fairly easily be done if you're using something like vB.) But I agree that it should be as conversation oriented as possible, especially for initial contact. If nothing else, we'd probably all end up with a lot of good friendships, male and female, out of it.
18. Chris Krycho said the following at 7:49 PM on Mar 27:
On a related note: the sheer scale of most of the posts, as well as the formatting of them, on that post you put up the other day would indicate that a forum would be a much better place for that sort of a conversation, anyway. It'd be a lot less formal, and people wouldn't necessarily feel so constrained to answer in such great length; conversation would ensue much better. Beyond that, my thoughts are simply that you'd probably be better off staying out of the business of hooking people up: you'd be much better off to be facilitators of the situation where people can meet, and protectors of those in that environment. Why try to compete with eHarmony, when you can offer something equally useful but different to people?
19. Melanie said the following at 7:51 PM on Mar 27:
I think Boundless is wise to take a step back from facilitating "internet dating"- given the level of responsibility that its contributors seem to feel toward their loyal readers, it would no doubt be distressing to see couples use this site for dating without the ability to know the parties involved enough to truly mentor on an individual basis. There are plenty of places for Christians to go online to seek partners. I'm sure most of us who have tried dating sites are well aware that the actual Christians are few and far between- I think the risks for this site truly would outweigh the benefits.
That said, I think having more of an open forum for discussion of issues would be a great idea (message boards, perhaps?), but to protect user privacy, personal contact information should be blocked.
20. Anne said the following at 7:52 PM on Mar 27:
There is one online dating site that actually pairs people off based on personality, an attribute which saves much of the frustration of combing through hundreds of profiles in search of "the one." However, Focus might be accused of some type of copy-cat plagiarism if it institued this type of personality "matching" service.
It seems, though, that the worst dating sites are those that throw the person out in a sea of other people and photographs, kind of a "sink or swim" approach. The best dating sites seem to be the most structured, encouraging marriage and offering articles on how to build strong and meaningful relationships.
If Focus did at least try offering this service, and I think it would be extremely well-received, I would encourage asking extremely specific profile questions regarding one's current relationship with God, ministry, future plans, and personality for the participant to answer. As far as the courtship model is concerned, it would be fascinating for Focus to become the first site to require or offer a mentor-type mediator within relationships that are becoming serious. But, then, this is just my two cents.
21. Jacob said the following at 8:48 PM on Mar 27:
Frankly, I'm just not interested. I think that interacting online, whether it is in a forum, by email or facebook, is too impersonal and shallow for developing the kind of relationships we are talking about. I would think that holding regional "mixers" or "relationship seminars" would be a much better solution to creating yet another online dating service. Have churches host it.
And for the record, I oppose the boundless forum idea too. trueU.org already has a forum where people are bickering over many of the same topics. Since trueU is targeted at a similar demographic, I think it's redundant to start another forum.
22. Darin said the following at 8:57 PM on Mar 27:
Since I live in a retirement community in a sparsely populated state, I decided to give internet dating a try. Wow...was I ever naive! But I stuck with it long enough to get a pretty good education about what works and what doesn't.
I could go on endlessly about the problems associated with online dating...but for now I'll only talk about one of them: They display people like items on a supermarket shelf...thus people take on the mentality of a consumer; becoming more self-centered in their persuit and more superficial.
I believe that the reason people on the Line find the idea of introductions so attractive is because through the discussion process we are getting to know each other from the inside out...something that would be lost if you took it to the level of a typical full-fledged dating site.
What I would recommend is more along the lines of this:
1)A forum with guided discussion. The questions would be pertinent to a couple thinking of starting a courtship (i.e. attitudes about finances, views on raising children, gender roles, etc.)
2)Each participant in the forum would have a profile with ONLY the most essential information (such as gender, geographic location and marital status). I think that by restricting non-essential information it would preserve the atmosphere that already exists in the Boundless discussions.
3)If at some point during the discussions a member developed an interest in another member they would give notice to Boundless. If the other person also gave notice of interest, it would be a match and Boundless would give them each other's contact information. (This would only be done in the event of a mutual request.)
Of course, there are different levels of "interest" so there would still be plenty of room for the guys to step up to the plate and define the relationship (in his first e-mail...right guys?). Boundless should intentionally discourage people from making assumptions about each others intentions prior to the official DTR.
There might also be people who find themselves in close proximity with someone of the same sex with whom they would like to strike up a friendship. That would be great too...and it might help to dissipate some of that "assumption of intent" that I was talking about in the previous paragraph.
In short, my advice is simply to keep it casual and be careful to preserve the dynamics that seem to be working already.
23. Katie said the following at 9:11 PM on Mar 27:
I don't have much experience with online matching services, so a lot of my options are based on observing friends. One problem I've seen is expectations. Some singles clearly are looking for a spouse, others a girlfriend/boyfriend, a date, or just a friend to get to know at the beginning. It would be nice if a service provided the opportunity to learn that information right away, to prevent later tension.
Also, with too many matches, the whole thing becomes competative, which breeds falseness.
A specific indicator of where a person stands on the courtship/dating line would also be nice. I think online matching would add an excellent benefit to courtship - widening the prospects for isolated individuals and getting to know the important things about a person instead of going solely or primarily on attraction. Plus, courters would be more likely to have an established safety net for meeting in person.
24. Francesca said the following at 10:01 PM on Mar 27:
I don't know that anyone was really thinking about Family starting a dating service, although that could be a good idea. Just a message board or forum where it would be easier for us to interact and get to know one another (and yes, maybe meet a potential spouse!) :)
25. Jackie said the following at 12:49 AM on Mar 28:
I don't believe Christians need another online dating service, but an actual place to meet others of like minds...which will expand our circles beyond our local churches. What if Boundless set up some "meetings" (in coffee shops, ice cream parlors, etc.) in different cities across the country, at designated times, to allow readers of this site and blog to meet and discuss issues that arise here, as well as express other concerns and encouragement. In this way, it's giving a more personal forum to get to meet new people, but not serving as a substitute to a more real-life setting, with churches/ family (or other accountability) still playing their vital roles.
26. Amanda said the following at 4:35 AM on Mar 28:
Interesting! I know I have thought in the past that it would be great if boundless could do such a service. I also know that I while I have considered other services in the past I thought they were either to expensive or I couldn't place my trust in the service. It is easy for anyone to just say they are christian and join a service... that i see as the biggest fall back.
27. khalil said the following at 6:57 AM on Mar 28:
Why is there a need to start yet another online dating site/service? Though I personally believe the whole courtship fad is overdone, I fail to see how that would translate to n online service. If people want "courtship" then let them do it in person, at home. If they want to online "date" then let them choose among the other services out there. Perhaps a better use of time and effort would be to critique the services that are already available.
28. Cherise said the following at 7:20 AM on Mar 28:
A Boundless dating service? At first blush, it seems appropriate, as you seek to minister to Christian singles. But it would take careful prayer and planning to achieve a successful "business" of match-making here. I appreciate the request for input. If this is an area God wishes the ministry to take on, I am sure He will provide ideas. For what they’re worth, here are my comments:
- One feature I liked from an online dating service was that they provided several stages of communication. People were able to ask open- and closed-ended questions to get a better idea of who they were talking to before openly conversing. Unless it was a mutual agreement, their identities and contact info were kept private.
- Something that may help couples seeking courtship (as opposed to dating-with-purpose?) would be articles or even FAQ regarding communication, physical intimacy, family issues, and other important topics. But don't limit the service to courtship seekers only.
- Boundless has a wide audience of like-minded people. Even if we disagree on some details, most readers seek to live a life pleasing to the Lord in everything they do. We desire to marry the best person possible and to raise godly children. This common denominator provides an excellent base for matching.
- A word of caution: dating and marriage are serious issues, as you have so eloquently expressed in the past. Providing a dating service should be done with integrity, fairness, flexibility, and most importantly, God's leading. There are many godly people on staff here, and I look forward to seeing where God leads!
29. Tracy said the following at 8:25 AM on Mar 28:
I am new to reading this blog but really gain a lot from the candor of the discussion.
Personally I don't feel that any of the sites out there can accurately screen somebody's intentions. Even with the "47 point matching systems" that sites boast of, there is not enough interaction. The ones that I have seen work well in my area are those that offer discussion boards with specific topics, organized group activities and chats. This allows interaction between everybody and not just potential partners.
It may be easy to get lost in all the services that are out there.
30. Gina said the following at 8:28 AM on Mar 28:
I agree with Elli about having it be conversation-based. Those "several stages of short-answer/multiple choice questions" from some services can make things a little difficult. The option you want or the question you want to ask isn't always available.
Also, I would suggest having both the courtship and dating options available. Everyone's different and relates in different ways.
31. LauraMH said the following at 9:03 AM on Mar 28:
I echo Elli's comments above. Regarding having a way to contact each other, it needs to be secure between the parties who want to communicate with each other, so you're not broadcasting your e-mail address to everyone (for example).
Many of the safety-type features found on traditional sites would have to be in place for me to use it. Having said that, I would much rather use a site created or endorsed by Boundless, as opposed to a mass-market site. So I am all for it!
32. Carrie said the following at 9:16 AM on Mar 28:
I think a boundless.org dating service is a wonderful idea!! I really like the set up eharmony.com has. The only issue I have with on-line dating is that one has to pay money to participate. That just makes me feel cheap. I can just imagine telling the grandkids "Yep. I had to pay someone to find your granddad!" Yuck. I love the screening process of e-harmony. I like everything about e-harmony except that I would have to pay something.
33. Dawn said the following at 9:24 AM on Mar 28:
I don't know that another Matchmaking site is necessary, but I really like the idea of a discussion forum, or even a chat room. That way, we could share location, ideas, and fellowship without such pressure. Then if people wanted to get to know one another better, they could take it from there.
34. Jeannie said the following at 10:26 AM on Mar 28:
I think a matching service would be great! The people who read Boundless seem to be really sincere and pretty like-minded. A way to match up the “seekers” would be great. Here are my thoughts:
1. It needs to be intentional, just like the rest of Boundless. This means eliminating those who are looking for a boyfriend/girlfriend because they are bored, those who aren’t serious about getting married and just want to chat with other like-minded people (there are plenty of other forums for that!), and those who are already married/engaged/in a serious relationship.
2. There should be some form of accountability. I like the idea of having a “reference” from a pastor, parent, or mentor of some kind. Perhaps that person could also verify the personal information (to the best of their knowledge) to help prevent gross misrepresentation.
3. People should be required to post a picture of themselves! Although looks aren’t the most important thing, they are a part of the whole person and I have a hard time getting to “know” someone without being able to picture what they look like. Perhaps the mentor mentioned above could also verify that the picture submitted is actually of the right person – no surprises!
4. General discussions are great and can help people interact in a somewhat normal manner. However, I don’t have time to read all the threads, keep up with everyone’s discussions, etc. and I’m sure I’m not alone. On the other hand, profiles are often sadly lacking in depth or even basic information. Perhaps it could be set up so that one’s profile would be answers to a thoughtful questionnaire by Boundless writers. Then you could have a place on an individual’s profile page where other users could post specific questions and the individual could post responses. These would be visible to all users, so people wouldn’t have to answer the same questions over and over. (Okay, I’m into time saving!)
5. One more thing – while safety of a concern, fake user names, fake or vauge geographical locations (“somewhere in the Western Hemisphere”), etc. are a detriment to anything “real” developing. I don’t want to tell my dad, “I’ve met this really neat guy online – his name is “saturndog” and he lives in “the coolest small town ever!” – do you want to contact him?” [Note that I’ve never been on a matchmaking site, just forums and message boards, so this may not even be an issue.]
I do think there would be real value in such a service. Thanks for considering it, and thanks for the super job you do at Boundless! You guys are a blessing.
35. Mandi said the following at 10:29 AM on Mar 28:
Hmmm..at first blush, this seems like a good idea but there are a lot of challenges, I think. Ones that just come with the (cyberspace) territory: how do you *really* know who's involved, how do you know the "accountability" references are themselves legit, how do you know this won't attract anti-FOTF types who just want to cause problems? And how do you not present people as items to be had in a supermarket, as one person commented above? There *are* some major security and dignity issues with anonymous "courtship" facilitation like this.
That said, it's a little curious as to why distance seems to be such an issue for a lot of Boundless readers, based on some of the comments in the (likely record-breaking) list of responses to Steve's post about motivated men last week. If you're interested in marriage, should it really matter that the person doesn't live in your state?? There are discounted domestic air fares, trains, phones, etc. that you can take advantage of. And distance isn't always a bad thing.
Since conversation-based interaction as we already have here is a great way to see a lot about how people think about a variety of different issues, what about including some extra boxes to check when someone posts a comment to allow for interaction between people who may develop an interest in each other who already participate here? I.e., could we have a situation where single girls could check off a box to tell Boundless that it's ok to pass along their email address to single guys who express interest in them based on observing their conversations on the Line? Or would the requirement to login to the Line just facilitate that further, especially if people had to fill out some kind of form to get a (free) account to join the Line community (if they are single and interested in this)?
Frequent (with a goal of monthly) regional mixers are probably more in keeping with what Boundless has been trying to promote, and they have the advantages of reaching the widest variety of pre-screened people serious about courtship. It would be a lot of work, but I think it would probably yield the most reliable (and safe) results.
36. Mark said the following at 10:40 AM on Mar 28:
I think face-to-face interaction beats online chatting any day. Has anyone else suffered a drop in productivity with this marathon discussion?
Could we get the people who did the Rocky Mountain mixer to do something like that in other parts of the country (like New England, maybe)?
37. Elena said the following at 10:44 AM on Mar 28:
I echo Chris Kycho and Darin, especially Chris's point about just facilitating an environment conducive to people's making friends and Darin's point #3. No matching/dating service needed. Although helping keep a relationship-pursuing couple from the forum, accountable...would be a good service to offer. How to do that, though... ?
The setup over at forums.crosswalk.com makes it easy to talk with people about all kinds of topics. And if you are a member (which is free), among other features, you can look at all the recent posts made by a particular user, look at people's profiles, and send private messages directly to another user. It's well moderated too. I think Boundless could do just as good a job with their own forum. Go for it, y'all! :o)
I love the idea of having offline meetups (rather than "speed-dating" mixers) sponsored by Boundless. Our Nashville bloggers do this frequently...just not as singles events.
38. Rebekah said the following at 11:05 AM on Mar 28:
I would have to agree with those before me who have pointed out that there are plenty of dating services to "hook people up". What we need is a common ground to meet up with each other, and I think a forum sounds like a great idea.
I also really liked Darin's idea. Sounds like a good plan to me!
Mixers in other parts of the country- excellent idea! How about Maryland? :)
39. Andrea said the following at 11:31 AM on Mar 28:
I prefer a moderated forum to discuss topics of interest, or ask advice from peers. I don't like the idea of Internet dating services, because it is too easy to mislead others, even unintentionally.
You know what would be neat? If we could connect informally with other Christian singles through regional service projects that involved a time commitment–maybe a week out of the summer, or regularly scheduled weekends. It wouldn't have to always be evangelical in nature (i.e. a missions trip).
If it was locally based, and you had to apply to a central organization, it would be convenient AND secure. Not to mention work is always a great ice-breaker. ("Could you please hand me the shovel? Thanks!)
Plus, nobody would feel pressured to pair off. It could just be a nice bonus!
40. Esther said the following at 11:50 AM on Mar 28:
Wow, what a discussion this has become! My original comment was triggered by the motivated men post, and the sense that there are Christian singles with a desire for marriage that just can't seem to find each other. Boundless seems to be a place where those individuals congregate, and while I'm not sure it's a good idea to launch a dating site, I wish there were some way for some of these discussions and common views on life and faith to develop into potentially more solid connections. Of the suggestions posted here, I'd prefer to see some sort of online forum with the ability to respond directly to the individual, or else some sort of Boundless sponsored (or at least announced) LIVE discussion meetings in various parts of the country. My sister is in ministry out in Colorado, and knows lots of great Christian singles, who are strong in faith and values. But I don't see that as much on the East Coast, so maybe we need to get together in a more intentional manner in this region.
41. Mac said the following at 12:08 PM on Mar 28:
Bottom line up front: No to the dating service or mixer. Yes to a online forum.
Initially it all stems back to the individual:
Problem: scarcity of quality marriage prospects in the area.
Causes/Individual’s Solution:
Cause: Individual not meeting anyone. Solution: Go meet people. “Friendly people have friends.”
Cause: Individual meeting single, but not Christian. Solution: Widen search area. “Fish aren’t found on land.”
Cause: Individual meeting single, Christian, but no connection (for whatever reason, ie not mature, not interested). Solution: Widen search area. “Plenty of fish in the sea.”
If it falls back on the individual, how can Boundless assist? If “we at Boundless want to cast a vibrant vision for the single years, helping you navigate this season while preparing for the challenges and responsibilities of the one to come,” the best way is to encourage and assist individuals in widening their search area. Part of that is already being done – by leaving the opportunity for us to leave comments and contact information with our comments, likeminded people can already be introduced. For example, everyone who leaves a comment can also leave a link to their blog.
To better facilitate this process Boundless should have a moderated/guided discussion forum. More in depth than just comments, it should have the following capabilities: basic registration information (screen name, gender, age, country, and “blog/website” as an optional field), search postings by screen name, contact request (email sent saying that so and so is interested in contacting you directly, do you wish to allow).
The issue still remains with the individuals; Boundless cannot bring people together, only provide places to interact.
42. Justice said the following at 12:28 PM on Mar 28:
I read only two posts but here's some thoughts... people are different online, although I if I was single I'd be mingling online... some people are way cuter online and have a 40 pound swing... just some non-spiritual honest thoughts
43. Aaron said the following at 12:36 PM on Mar 28:
Everyone seems to like the idea of a forum, and I think it’s a great idea. In principle, I really like Andrea’s idea about having regional service projects/mixers. In practice however, I’m not sure how feasible it would be. Who would organize and implement the program in areas far away from Colorado? And what magnitude of participation could be expected? Practically, the forum is probably the easiest of the suggestions to actualize, though I would love to see some sort of Boundless moderated personal interaction.
Alternatively, Ted could just start sending out people’s email addresses to others in the region based on IPs. ;-)
44. Christina said the following at 12:40 PM on Mar 28:
I think it would be great, but instead of being a "dating service," maybe boundless readers could just send in their info and what they're looking for and a few paragraphs about who they are, truly, inside, and boundless people could match people up via email, like a Christian matchmaker like you've talked about on the site sometimes. I would love love love this, as I trust Focus on the Family and their values-- which I don't necessarily with other sites and don't know what kind of crazy people they would set me up with :)
45. Ted Slater said the following at 12:57 PM on Mar 28:
So Aaron, interested in knowing about other Boundless readers from South Carolina?
;-)
46. Anne said the following at 1:00 PM on Mar 28:
Although I understand many of the comments which request a free service, I would have to say that charging a monthly (or set) rate would help weed out undesireables (stalkers, etc.) from those who are serious about finding and maintaining a Christian relationship.
47. Chantell said the following at 1:25 PM on Mar 28:
Add my signature to the petition for a moderated forum followed by a Boundless-sponsored meet-and-greet. I like these ideas because they would permit us to get to know one another (from a profile, picture and postings) before having to contemplate coupling, and because we could meet one another in a group setting without the pressures of a one-on-one meeting at a local coffee shop.
48. Blair said the following at 1:34 PM on Mar 28:
I am not sure if the Boundless staff has the resources to be actual "match makers" or even plan regular regional mixers but some of us who want these events may be able to help out. I am out on the west coast (central cali) and would be willing to help put together a service project, mixer or whatever (with some guidence from the Boundless staff) in my area. Would anyone else be willing to put their time and effort where their mouth is and help facilitate such and event?
49. Mandi said the following at 2:13 PM on Mar 28:
I'd be interested in helping too even if it's only remotely (given where I live now), with guidance from the Boundless staff. It would be a blessing.
50. Darin said the following at 2:19 PM on Mar 28:
In addition to my earlier suggestions, I also support the idea of off-line gatherings. (I think that the two ideas could work synergistically.)
I will echo those who advise against wasting your efforts trying to do what is already being done (i.e. a dating/matchmaking site). From what I've seen it would be very difficult to improve upon what eHarmony is already doing along those lines.
In addition, here is a list of problems that you would face:
1)Spammers using the system to gather e-mail addresses.
2)Con artists. Yes...they are abundant on Christian dating sites.
3)Sexual predators looking for their next victim.
4)People who misrepresent themselves (i.e. phoney photos, outdated photos, false information about marital status, occupation, etc.)
NOTE: References only provide a false sense of security. (I could go down to the local prison and find a few hundred references...and without a background check noone would know the difference.)
5)You would be legally required to match married people and homosexuals. (Just ask eHarmony. They have been fighting legal battles over this and the only leg they have to stand on legally is that their personality profiles haven't been tested on homosexuals or people who are already married.)
Would it be possible for these spammers, con artists, predators, etc. to infiltrate a forum that facilitates the exchange of e-mail addresses? Yes...but there are far easier targets elsewhere. If these people have to attract interest by composing well thought out answers which reflect good Christian character...they're not likely to waste their time. Nor will they be able to fool people quite so easily.
51. Mark B. said the following at 3:07 PM on Mar 28:
Mr. Watters you are stirring up way too many good ideas and stimulating thoughts!
WHAT AN OUTSTANDING IDEA!!! Being acquainted with the Christian "dating/match-making" sites and seeing/experiencing the good and the bad, I do believe that there is a very real market for one which would integrate a "courtship model" and would contain many of the ideas already mentioned above.
Anonymity - a word, state, and condition that so much is written about and how powerful it's condition upon our lives and culture - is one of key elements that lay at the heart of our interpersonal conflicts. It's evident in our "poser-false-selfs" in day to day interactions, and it's clearly an insidious influence in the internet dating world.
Such a construct would offer tremendous advantage and value to this brave new phenomena of internet match-making. It would surely draw a line in the sand against the dilution of qualifiers that other sites seem to experience and should garner the interests of those in a sincere, God-fearing, search for the love of their life!
Fascinating idea that triggers both the analyst in me along with the "what-is-God-doing" observer.
52. Charles H. said the following at 3:22 PM on Mar 28:
Steve, you're asking the right questions! To go back to the original five:
1. The best services are the ones that go straight to relevant info. For an idea of what this looks like, there's a free service in Finland that really cuts to the chase. On the main screen you get username, location, beliefs about drinking, smoking, and premarital sex, and whether a picture is available. This makes the service much more user-friendly. Its usefulness to anyone here, however, is pretty limited unless you want to go to Finland to meet your spouse. =)
BTW these guys had a great solution to the question of avoiding homosexual matching: you could only write to someone who was listed as opposite sex from yourself.
2. Main sources of irritation are things like leaving expired profiles around for weeks or months to make the membership rolls look bigger than they are. Some sites are notorious for this. Likewise, sites that either lie or are evasive about price. Figure out what, if anything, users should pay -- then be upfront about it. If you pay, you should get the right to email anyone whose profile you can see, and the holders of those profiles shouldn't have to pay anything to read your mail.
Oh, and SPAM! There is a neat (and free!) British site, but it's so heavily spammed by scammers and passport-seekers that many users quickly leave.
3. Honestly, I don't understand how the concepts of internet dating and courtship combine. If you really want to involve friends and family to the extent that model suggests, don't you need to be local? This is moot for me because I am still far from convinced that courtship is the model to use. However, if FOTF if going to make that an option on the site, it needs to be easy to see which relationship model individual users plan to follow.
4. As far as the FOTF name is concerned? Don't know; you're competing with services like Eharmony that have a HUGE ad budget. But if you're thinking of a free service (or price just high enough to cover costs), I think a well-run free service could be both fun and useful.
53. Aaron said the following at 3:23 PM on Mar 28:
Ted, I of course would never ask for such a gross violation of privacy. But are there any? Is Boundless popular down here in the Bible Belt?
54. Melissa said the following at 3:23 PM on Mar 28:
I think that the regional mixer idea could be lots of fun. And yes, Blair, I for one would be willing to help plan some sort of event for my region (Southern Illinois, so, a midwest mixer anyone??) But anyway, I think it's a great idea. I think that enough of us are intrigued/inspired by each other's posts and comments to want to facilitate a way to get together and meet face to face.
55. Lewis said the following at 3:40 PM on Mar 28:
I'd like to throw my two cents in and really encourage the somewhat-regional mixer idea. At the very least, you'll make some new friends in your general vicinity with those who are presumably interested in some of the same areas as you.
Another online dating service, whether sponsored by FOTF or not, doesn't really seem to be practical. Is it the best way to spend money (because it takes money to make money, even to break even). I'm sure Boundless and FOTF can use that money in better ways than to create another "better-but-still-a-copy" of whatever's already been done.
That said, if Boundless and/or FOTF DID offer such a program, I'd likely look into and research it.
56. a said the following at 3:52 PM on Mar 28:
I think a forum would be a good idea, if only because it would make discussions like this a whole lot easier.
Then again, if you start running any sort of matching service or even a forum designed for couples to meet, you'll run the risk of psychos trying to sneak in.
Still, a forum would be nice...
-a
57. Kristina said the following at 5:02 PM on Mar 28:
I'm also on the west coast, and in the central cali area :) So yes - I might be up for helping to plan something!
As far as what I have liked and disliked about other dating sites...
1) I didn't like how many people there were to choose form. I felt rather lost...like I was in a big sea of fish, or a super market full of fresh ripe fruit, hehe!
2) Not everyone who claims Christianity as their belief system really lives by it. That makes it extremely hard to know what sort of person you were emailing, or chatting with from the start.
3)I did like that the sites were able to funnel people my direction who were within so many miles of where I lived. Like 300 miles for instance...or 50 miles. How ever many miles I was willing to consider.
That being said, I do like the idea of forums and discussion borads for casual interaction with other people, in hopes of friendships and possibly more serious relationships later. A good idea would be to have a place for open discussion along with a handful of leader directed discussions if a forum were to be created. That way, it offers a place for those of us who like a bit more structure, and a place for those of us who like to just jump right into talking to complete strangers, hehe.
58. Sarah G said the following at 6:07 PM on Mar 28:
I think the idea of a forum is the most advantageous avenue for getting to know each other. Of course, as with anything in life, you run the risk of people who may abuse it, i.e. spammers, stalkers, people with hidden agendas. As Christians though, that is hopefully where discernment will come in. If a person believes that God guides us to a future spouse, then I would hope the Holy Spirit would lead and guide as to who one should choose to have communication with. As to the issues with online dating services, I think that maybe they are relied on too much as far as "people" or a advanced computer system doing the "matching" which then takes God out of the role. Whereas, when a person is discussing their thoughts, opinions and beliefs, in a venue such as a forum, it would become quite hard to "fake" their persona, as people are usually only vocal as to things they truly believe in, whether right or wrong, good or bad.
59. Philip Gregg said the following at 6:15 PM on Mar 28:
I don't think it's a good idea for Focus to start its own online dating service. If you read these posts carefully it seems to me there's two main types of people responding 1) The people with expectations that no mortal man or women could fufill. 2) The ones who think they fufill them and don't understand why everyone else doesn't thinks so. 3) A handful of cowards that another website won't help ( this is me).
As much as it'd be great if it was just a matter of getting folks togeither and watching them go off there's no practical way of doing it.
I could write this so that I sounded like the nicest person in the world and you wouldn't know it until you'd spent months getting to know me that I'm really an arrogent jerk.
I think what might be more useful is some "Dude, you're like a 6" workshops for Christians. Most of the articles on this and other websites are screaming that guys arn't ready for commitment or the rigors of the big M. So let's hold some workshops where young adults can sit down, meet the spiritual leaders in their area, and get a check-up with someone who isn't going to tell them they're great just because you're friends with them.
60. Rebecca said the following at 6:26 PM on Mar 28:
Here's my little plug. As a 28-year-old single woman who has had a very tough time meeting marriage-minded men, even though I am very social and have quite a large circle of friends and acquaintences, I think that online interaction has a very definite place in modern dating. I perfer eHarmony matching-type systems rather than just oceans of profiles. I make it a habit to only respond to men who initiate with me and that has eliminated a lot of prospects, but also resulted in some interesting possibilities.
Boundless doesn't have the resources of a site like eHarmony, but it can give people a chance to meet and discuss. By all means, open the floor for conversation and see how it goes. BTW, I liked the idea of the minimal but direct profiles of the Finnish site.... Something like that might be helpful.
61. Bethany said the following at 6:29 PM on Mar 28:
I haven't read all of the posts, but here is my input:
Obviously there is a great potential and desire for Christian singles from around the country to be able to meet. However, I don't think Focus on the Family should be the facilitator of such a "matching" service. It is not part of your mission, and although it may potentially contribute to building families, I don't think it even qualifies as related.
Secondly, meeting online has much potential for failure. My sister was "perfectly matched" via eHarmony with over 500 guys. With 5 of them, she communicated with them online and over the phone for a period of time -- with everything seeming great: godly guys, spiritual maturity, financial stability, intentionality, etc. In every single case, when she met them in person, there was nothing. They had no personal chemistry.
Finally, my only suggestion for Boundless would be to hold a yearly conference similar to New Attitude and/or have a mixer similar to the "Rocky Mountain Christian Singles Mixer." These seem like ideas that are not wrought with danger! I also don't have an objection to a forum, though I am not especially familiar with them.
62. Hugh said the following at 7:39 PM on Mar 28:
I've actually been slowly working in my spare time on what I call a "cooperative matchmaking, courtship, and growth community" for the past four or so months. Most of my work so far has been ad hoc prototyping though I've began work on the matchmaking section.
There are three parts of the community: matchmaking, courtship, and growth. The matchmaking part tries to match two people together (of course). The courtship part tries to guide two people in their relationship until marriage. The growth section does so much that it is hard to explain, but it's three primary purposes is to help everyone grow in maturity, help build rapport during the matchmaking and courtship processes, and to have everyone introduced to the same body of information so that they can relate to each other better(it's kind of hard to have a Christian world view when everyone is doing their own thing).
The matchmaking side of the community is somewhat like other typical dating services except it works to achieve these goals.
1. No one will ever be contacted by someone they never want to talk to.
2. No one will ever hesitate from at least attempting to contact someone they are interested in contacting.
3. No one will(should) feel like they've been psychologically reversed engineered ala e-harmony.
4. No one will be allowed to "play the field".
5. No one will be allowed to gawk at each other like a meat market.
6. No one will have trouble figuring out what to write in their profile.
7. No one will have to sit and read bad profiles full of irrelevant information and meaningless cliches.
8. There will be actual enforced picture standards.
I'm not going to give out the actual design decisions and algorithms involved in trying to achieve these goals on this blog comment. There are some trade offs involved which I haven't listed(mostly human intervention issues). The above list should give you an idea about what I thought was bad about the other dating services.
-------
I think the best course of action would be for someone to set up a wiki (I actually have one setup already though I need to clean it up) and a message board so that we brainstorm and come to conclusions about what the actual "business requirements" of a courtship service. We spend way too much time talking past each other without actually achieving anything. It would be best to get as many people involved in the design, development, testing, and maintenance of a site as possible. I'm more than willing to give up what little I've done so far and help work (pro bono) on the site if we can all come to some conclusions.
63. Godfrey said the following at 8:36 PM on Mar 28:
My random thoughts, and first post, for what they’re worth.
I’m not too excited about a dating service. I don’t deny that they’ve worked, and worked well, for some people. But between the difficulties of gate keeping and member honesty, it’s not something I’ve ever really considered. I’m sure a lot of the things one might put in a profile could be turn-offs in the online dating world, but just might be the things that would spark, and maintain, romance in face-to-face relationships.
Internet dating can also encourage long-distance relationships that turn into marriages where the couple and one or both sets of parents are very separated geographically. Given modern society, and the way career/education determines (or is allowed to determine) where we live, some of that is unavoidable. Some of it is also offset by modern transportation and communication technologies. However, distance does change the dynamics of relationships, and I think it weakens the bonds between generations. It can also mean that parents end up in nursing homes, or get relocated to an unfamiliar part of the country, when they can no longer fully take care of themselves. (Oops, my agrarian tendencies are showing again!)
As for a forum, I think it could be a good complement to the discussions that are already taking place in The Line comments. But it lacks the face-to-face, real-time element...I read the occasional blog and comments, but greatly prefer real-world interactions.
I’d be very much in favor of something more grassroots and reader-organized. One of the magazines I subscribe to, First Things, has independent and self-organized discussion groups organized by readers across the country. I’ve been involved in trying to get a local group going, and while it isn’t easy, the people and discussions have been fantastic! I don’t have any idea of how large the Boundless readership is, or how it’s geographically distributed (secure poll, maybe?), but I’m sure something like this could work in at least some areas.
Locally-run groups could have a lot of advantages, including more flexibility, less time and financial commitment on the part of Boundless, and greater potential for “accountability.” A local group could provide an environment for discussion and for making friends face-to-face that wouldn’t necessarily have to be in the context of pursuing dating/courtship. I’d be happy to organize something in central Illinois, and might be able to use some of my contacts to try something in central Tennessee, too.
64. Carrie said the following at 6:54 AM on Mar 29:
I should resist the urge to do this, but I won't.
Aaron, I don't know EXACTLY how popular it is, but I live in Georgia and Tulsa, OK is the the farthest west of the Mississippi I've been.
I speak of boundless.org fairly frequently and link it from blogs often.
65. Danielle said the following at 11:58 AM on Mar 29:
Darin said: Each participant in the forum would have a profile with ONLY the most essential information (such as gender, geographic location and marital status). I think that by restricting non-essential information it would preserve the atmosphere that already exists in the Boundless discussions.
I agree, Darin, with the limited info given. I've been on dating sites, and have recently made the decision it's just not a healthy way to proceed (for me). Though I know of 2 friends who have married thru eharmony, I think a topical chat site for Christian singles would be great. Perhaps age could be added to Darin's specifics? It would help to know at least that basic info.
66. Aranel Alasse said the following at 12:43 PM on Mar 29:
Sorry everyone... I didn't read all of the comments on this discussion, but I've noticed that there's been a lot of discussion about starting a forum. Here's my 2 cents about that:
I think that both The Boundless Line and its readers could REALLY benefit from a format very similar to slashdot.org. It comes across to me as sort of a mix between a blog and a forum.
There's several concepts at Slashdot that I really like:
* Directed discussions: It's not an open forum where just anyone can start a new topic. The "high ups" at slashdot post something first, then the people discuss from there. In this respect, it seems more like a blog to me.
* Threaded conversations: You can reply directly to the post you want to comment on, which makes the discussion a lot easier to follow, and in general, allows for deeper discussion, and it's just more robust.
* Logging in: You can store a profile about yourself, and keep track of other people by marking them as friends or whatever. Something similar to this might be useful to the people who would be looking for Boundless to be a springboard to a relationship.
* Searching, etc: You can find all the comments by a particular user, or search for any other word or phrase you want to read about. I'd love the ability to be able to search all the comments for something.
I still like the idea of The Line being moderated, though. But otherwise, I think moving The Line to more of the format of Slashdot would be a great idea! It would be more directed than just a typical forum where anything goes.
Anyways, I'm not a huge fan of the idea of Boundless providing an online-dating type of service. But I'm not opposed to it being more forum-like, which could be used by the people as a springboard to a relationship if desired... But then you have to think about keeping accountability and that sort of thing...
I dunno. Just a couple of thoughts.
(One last thing to mention: I can't always read the picture that has the letters in it before I post my comment. Even I get the letters wrong... Is there a different font you can use for the letters or something? so I know what the thing that kind of looks like a l or maybe a t or even an f really is... I'm sure the bots will have a hard time figuring it out if even a real person can't always get it right...)
67. Amber said the following at 1:00 PM on Mar 29:
I think a service from Focus on the Family via Boundless for courtship/dating would be good. I think it would narrow the "playing field" for lack of a better term. I know no guy who thinks like me on this point...and I have good Christian guy friends. (If they do think this way, no one's told me).
Don't do a forum. It's way too unstructured for such an endeavor and people get hurt. Keep it structured,and honest; use surveys, personality profiles, and sheltered communication.
I might use it over other unnamed services including "real life". ha!
68. Ivette said the following at 1:13 PM on Mar 29:
I have a gazillion thoughts and will post them when given adequate time to flesh them out. That said, my roommate and I are willing to head up a Washington, DC/N. Virginia group or event.
Not for the sole purpose of meeting someone, because as much as we desire that, our purpose for living is Christ and advancing His Kingdom - not marriage. That said, Truth-loving, Biblical-Worldview-thinking people need to hang out for the edification of the body and let the Lord lead from there.
We've actually been thinking of starting something like this for a while. The both of us are FFI Alums too so, Alphas and Omegas get at us.
IvetteAlegria@gmail.com.
69. Andrea said the following at 2:49 PM on Mar 29:
May I just add that I am very skeptical of online relationships, in general? The Internet is too impersonal and too intimate, all at the same time.
I have a very good friend who met the perfect Christian guy through eHarmony. He was charming, he was in ministry, and he had recently moved to her town. They hit it off. A month later, she finds out through MySpace that he has been engaged to another girl all along. A girl he later moves in with after my friend breaks up with him in shock. So much for online profiles.
I myself have had a different experience. Just over a year ago, I became online friends with a great Christian guy from another state after our siblings and mutual friend tried to set us up. We e-mailed, talked on the phone, and eventually met in person, but while our core beliefs were the same, our backgrounds and personalities were just too different–something our good friends did not take into consideration. So much for matchmaking.
70. derek_from_canada said the following at 3:52 PM on Mar 29:
I think it is too much work to make a matchmaking thingy work. (moderators, accounts, profiles, pictures)
I think leave it up to the experts (E-harmony, Christian Cafe, Fusion101, relationships.com, whatever.
In some ways, things like Facebook are an interesting matchmaking system because at least people are friends of friends and somewhat credible instead of potential anonymous serial killers. =) I'd go that route if I was making a new innovative system.
I think online relationships aren't real until you meet in person. Two people have to start integrating into each others worlds (families, friends) and staying "online" lets them stay comfortably isolated. Comfortably compartmentalized into an online fantasy life.
Cyber relationships are just entertainment until you meet in person and start making it real.
I think online dating sites work best when used as another option to meet people in your same city. Better than some church socials or singles groups because at least you have filtered for people that are actually interested in pursuing things. And you can filter whether they like crochet or wave boarding as a bonus.
But expectations shouldn't be much higher than meeting random people after church at the coat rack.
Thems my opinions,
:)
Derek
71. Amy said the following at 4:24 PM on Mar 29:
I think it's admirable that Focus would even consider something like this -- after all, there is a definite demographic group out there that Focus just can't connect to; namely, those who WANT to have a family to focus upon!!!
But I don't think an online/internet service is the best approach. It is far too impersonal and consumer-based, and in those terms, the market is saturated. It's HIGHLY overdone, and I doubt there's anything new that FOF could contribute to revive it.
The online dating scene is like playing the lottery -- all you're paying for is a chance to hope, to dream, to indulge in all your fairy-take ideals for a while, browsing match after match, profile after profile, each time asking, "Is the THE ONE?" Eventually, you don't remember how to stop looking... every person on the street or in the pew who catches your eye, you find yourself instantly glancing to the left hand. All of this, I believe, goes against the very solid Biblical perspective of waiting on the Lord and resting in Him. Online dating only encourages the restlessness.
I say these things from experience -- over 1,200 matches on eHarmony; 3,000+ profile views on ChristianCafe; 1,975 matches on LoveAndSeek.com; not to mention ChristianMingle, Match.Com, PerfectMatch.com, AtLastWeMeet.com... see what I mean about the restlessness? It's like shopping for a church just to find the one with the most available singles of the opposite sex -- pretty soon you're checking every site on the web, desperately hoping to find someone who likes you, too.
In the end, all I can say is that I wish I'd never ventured into the online dating scene in the first place. All the wasted money, all the wasted energy, and all the wasted hope just don't add up to God's ideal for relationship building.
That being said, I believe FOF would be better employed in establishing a series of conferences for singles around the country, featuring speakers who can specifically address where we're at in our lives. Breakout sessions could be held on any number of topics... all in a setting that is CHRIST-focused, not babe-focused or hunk-focused. I cringe at the thought of attending such a conference only to find myself surrounded by lots of artificial tans, faces primed with layers of color, hair teased to perfection with mousse and hairspray, and perfectly sparkling white teeth everywhere I look.... Our most attractive qualities as CHRISTIANS, whether single or married, should be CHRIST, not Max Factor or the Aqua Velva man. And I would hope such a conference would encourage singles to delve into the depths of their hearts to unearth their TRUE beauty and attractiveness, and teach us how to wisely and honestly share that beauty with the people God brings into our lives... and leave the matchmaking up to Him.
72. Michelle said the following at 8:30 PM on Mar 29:
Want to know something really interesting... I did a show with Dr. Dobson & Dr. Tony Evans at the Focus Campus in 1995. I told Dr. Dobson that this would happen, this entire "Christian Dating" thing was going to manifest itself in a huge way. At the time he listened and I don't know if he realized how accurate I was or not. Probably so, that's why I was invited to the show. The answer now was my answer then and it will be as unpopular today as it was then... this issue my friend is selfishness and unless someone takes the time to address it in a major way, your efforts here are going to make matters much worse instead of better. I applaud you for wanting to address Christian singles, you should, but the flavor and tenor of the site is part of the problem. The issue is not one of a lack of men or too many women or men not asking etc. Yes, those are symptoms and treating symptoms without addressing the real cancer... well... maybe it might give some temporary relief, but what is needed is to cut out the cancer and once you do you can really start to get better. Cutting hurts, it is not popular. What's popular is quickly relieving the pain (as one would do with narcotics). This site is more of a narcotic than a knife and I think your intentions are very sincere... but there is a good, better and best treatment. This one is noble, but not exactly good, better or best. You'll see... when it doesn't turn around despite your efforts... you'll painfully see.
73. Eliana said the following at 8:58 PM on Mar 29:
Facebook has a Boundless fan club.
74. Riqui said the following at 9:28 PM on Mar 29:
Boundless has been a beacon of wisdom, hope, and consistancy since I stumbled upon it 8 years ago as a college freshman. Many of the issues have convicted, encouraged, entertained, and affirmed many areas of my life. It would seem that the Boundless team has a magnifying glass into the hearts and souls of Christian singles because your words capture and address so poignantly what lies there.
As much as it would seem "natural" to segue into the realm of a dating/courtship "service" with the issues and blogs of the last several months, I firmly believe that it would undermine the credibility of Boundless. It would take away from the overall emphasis of encouraging singles. I'll be honest, I have tried a few of the online dating services out there and as some have mentioned, those servies can feel like meat markets.
There have been several good suggestions in lieu of a dating/courtship "service" and those suggestion I would support.
I appreciate that you are taking feedback and that you are prayerfully considering the future. May God bless and direct you as you seek His will in this.
75. Chris Krycho said the following at 9:55 PM on Mar 29:
Michelle, with all respect, I think you're missing the fact that Boundless is, and has been, addressing that very issue. The number of articles dealing with that very topic, in all its various manifestations, is extremely high. To so cavalierly dismiss that, especially in contrast with your own superior wisdom, seems rather arrogant. That may not have been your intent - indeed, I trust it was not - but it certainly was what you communicated. "I told you so; and I'm telling you so now. You'll see..." That's simply not a terribly helpful attitude. Instead of laying down a load of criticism, why don't you make suggestions as to how the Boundless team can actually address what you feel is the root issue.
(Incidentally, I agree - with both you and the Boundless team - that the ultimate issue is selfishness. If you review at least some of the posts on Steve Watters' thread from last week, I think you'll see that the vast majority of us responding have the same views on the topic, have the same grasp on the idea that selfishness is the problem, and are very strongly seeking to correct that in our own lives - and are still seeking people to marry. This is a response to that, not a self-indulgent "how can we all make ourselves happy?" question.)
So I'll reiterate that while I don't think Focus taking on the role of a matching service is a good idea, I think you ought to be careful in your quick dismissal of the motives and thoughts of those at Boundless. Selfishness is one of the issues they address time and again. So is pride; so is envy; so are unrealistic expectations about what marriage ought to be like; so are false views of the purpose of marriage. How is that a "narcotic," precisely?
If you could just clarify that, I'd appreciate it immensely. :-)
76. Chris Krycho said the following at 10:03 PM on Mar 29:
Oh, and as a side note, the Boundless group referenced a little ways up can be found here. Enjoy, all!
77. Darin said the following at 10:50 PM on Mar 29:
Michelle, I agree that selfishness is a huge problem with singles today...but I wouldn't go so far as saying that it's the only problem. Nor would I go so far as to say that Boundless is ignoring it. Take the recent article "Me, Me, Me" for example. (And there are numerous other articles in the archives.)
Personally, I see it as a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted solution. And that's what I see Boundless doing.
To all of the people at boundless, thanks!
78. Leah said the following at 12:46 AM on Mar 30:
Michelle, you obviously have no idea what Boundless is even about. There have been so many articles on the common selfishness of singles and how singles should be more intentional about finding a spouse and how many singles need to change their attitude and and and and... the list goes on. There are so many that it's beginning to annoy me- someone who has been dating a guy for 2 years and has most probably already found her spouse!
How about you go back and read through all the archives of Boundless Line and the actual Boundless website before making remarks about its goals and methods.
79. BDB said the following at 1:02 AM on Mar 30:
I'll second Darin's idea for small profiles.
Since e-mail addresses aren't currently published here, that helps solve the spam problem.
Here's two additional ideas:
1) Provide links to all the posts done by a certain e-mail address. This will make it easy for someone to read everything someone else has written -- better than a profile!
2) Find some automated way for one poster to contact the other and the other to accept or decline. Then they'd both get the relevant e-mail address and Boundless would be done with their responsibility.
That's my $.02
80. xeres said the following at 1:34 AM on Mar 30:
Michelle,
I understand what the message that you are trying to say. Selfishness is a problem and needs to be addressed particularly in the dating relam. However, I'm disappointed when you said that that this site is a narcotic, than a knife for the problem. Have you read the their latest articles yet along with "Me,Me, Me" by Matt Kaufman? This problem is being addressed. Really, the ulimate to ending selfishness is Christ and having a right relationship and standing with Him through repentance, putting trust (not mental assertion) that Jesus paid the full price for humanity's sin and receive the Holy Spirit. From there, you'll learned to love God, which lead to really love other people. I'm going to side with much of what Chris Krycho said just because what he said is really what I thought and that he often has great insight on a lot of subject matters.
On the side note, I'm not that excited about online dating service in general. They freak me out. I don't mind meeting people online through chat rooms, IMs, myspace though I have developed some reservations in doing so still due some hard to some unpleasant experiences particularly before I became a Christ follower. I did have good ones but the bad ones is what I have a hard time letting go, which is unfair on my part but it's there.
81. Rebekah said the following at 6:56 PM on Mar 30:
great idea BDB!
82. Charles H. said the following at 3:31 PM on Mar 31:
Hold the calls, folks, we have a winner. BDB has the best answer so far, and by far the easiest to implement. To flesh out the idea a little, here's how it would work.
Step 1: I see a post I love and click the 'request contact' button.
Step 2: The post's author receives a message: 'Charles H. has requested to contact you. His email address is as follows.'
Step 3: The author writes me -- or doesn't. Hey, it's her choice. =)
And not to pile on, Michelle, but I don't understand what you meant. If the problem is that my church has very few people my age, and I'm not meeting people outside church because I'm working long hours (which seems to be a common combo here!) how is it selfish for me to try an alternate way of meeting people? Or to look at the opposite, how would avoiding Internet dating make me unselfish?
83. Sheree said the following at 11:21 PM on Apr 1:
I had to ponder this one for a bit. I admit it: I'm not a fan of Internet-based dating/courtship services. I know it works for some – a girl I know met her husband thanks to one such Christian service – but sometimes it fosters the unrealistic "perfect soul mate" concept and that just isn't pretty.
That said, I love the idea of having groups or conferences across the country (maybe even internationally) where we can get to know one another. I especially like the suggestion that FOF should partner with local churches to facilitate this. One of the best ways to get Christian men and women together is in a community of believers focused on Christ and His Truth. Plus, it would be a great reason to bring our churches together and remind us just how big the Body is.
Online, I am encouraged by articles on Boundless, and The Line is evidence that there are other brothers and sisters in Christ also striving to be like our Lord. Imagine what God would do if we all got together to talk?
Thanks to your team, Boundless, and to all the brave souls who post. =)
84. Karis said the following at 3:57 AM on Apr 2:
I like the forum idea that many people have presented here. There could be discussions on all kinds of topics, and it would be a good way to connect with people who have similar interests.
Mixer EVENTS sound good, too, but sadly that leaves out those of us who live in other countries! I'm in SE Asia, but that doesn't mean I've given up on marriage!
So, something that allows people to find each other in their own country, or even find people interested in going to other countries, to have the opportunity to meet up...that would be nice.
I think we don't need another matchmaking service per se, but if Family did one, I'd like to see the age range of matches be self-selectable. At one site, they pair girls with guys up to 10 years older, and you can't lower the maximum age! Some of us just really don't want that.
85. Jessica H said the following at 4:50 PM on Apr 3:
Ooooooo....that's a fun one! What a big can of worms we've cracked here.
Here's a question. Who said it had to be a "dating service"? I mean you guys are always writing about being friends first and courtship and then you want to turn around and create a dating service? *confused*
But I was always taught that for every complaint you submit, you must submit a suggestion for a solution. How about instead of having a "dating" service (which encourages absolute strangers to hook up based on looks or interest or other various usundry unimportant things) why not have something like a blogring or a discussion board. I don't know the word for it, but here's the idea. People get a username and password to access this blog. Displayed with their username is the State they live in. Users from the same state could all plan a big get together. (Maybe every state has its own blog room or something) In order to keep from compromising privacy, you can get messages on that site (kinda how the messaging on xanga works). No one knows your email. That way it's a pressure free environment and it's not such a desperate thing. I know there are a ton of blog things out there but I feel this one would be different because it would be Christian...there aren't a lot of those.
I don't think we need to matched up as much as we need the ability to FIND eachother! Does that make sense?
As for the validity of internet correspondence: I don't see anything wrong with long distance/internet relationships. A friend of mine from Canada was emailing back and forth with a young man from Ohio for a few months before he finally flew up to visit. After the visit, they both felt it best to break the friendship off but it still goes to show that it works! I know a couple who fell in love long distance. She was a missionary in Australia, he was here in the states. They had never met before, they wrote letters back and forth and married not long after she came back home. Sometimes I think it's the best way because there are no pretences.